Obesity remains a serious health problem and it is no secret that many people want to lose weight. Behavioral economists typically argue that “nudges” help individuals with various decisionmaking flaws to live longer, healthier, and better lives. In an article in the new issue of Regulation, Michael L. Marlow discusses how nudging by government differs from nudging by markets, and explains why market nudging is the more promising avenue for helping citizens to lose weight.

Armed with a computer model in 1935, one could probably have written the exact same story on California drought as appears today in the Washington Post some 80 years ago, prompted by the very similar outlier temperatures of 1934 and 2014.

Two long wars, chronic deficits, the financial crisis, the costly drug war, the growth of executive power under Presidents Bush and Obama, and the revelations about NSA abuses, have given rise to a growing libertarian movement in our country – with a greater focus on individual liberty and less government power. David Boaz’s newly released The Libertarian Mind is a comprehensive guide to the history, philosophy, and growth of the libertarian movement, with incisive analyses of today’s most pressing issues and policies.

Search form

Little Bang for the Buck

The new numbers from the Census Bureau showing that 14.3 percent of Americans are now living in poverty is a national disgrace — and a clear sign that we are doing something wrong.

The federal government currently operates 122 different anti-poverty programs, ranging from Medicaid to the tiny Even Start Program for Indian Tribes and Tribal Organizations. All together, the federal government spent more than $591 billion in 2009 on means-tested or anti-poverty programs, and will undoubtedly spend even more this year. That amounts to $14,849 for every poor man, woman and child in America. Given that the poverty line is just $10,830, we could have mailed every poor person in America a check big enough to lift them out of poverty — and still saved money.

Since we started the War on Poverty in 1965, the federal government alone has spent more than $13 trillion fighting poverty. Including state and local government brings total anti-poverty spending over $15 trillion. Clearly we have received very little bang for the buck. Throwing money at the problem has neither reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient.

Perhaps its time to focus less on making poverty comfortable, and more on creating the prosperity that will get people out of poverty. That means that if we wish to fight poverty, we must end those government policies — high taxes and regulatory excess — that inhibit growth and job creation.

We must protect capital investment and give people the opportunity to start new businesses. We must reform our failed government school system to encourage competition and choice. We must enable the poor to save more, and build their own future.

After all, an effective anti-poverty program should be judged not by how much we put in but by what we get out.